Question for lib/dems

[del]

Who said anything about equality? All we are saying is.....pay your fucking workers so they can:

A. Keep a roof over their heads, pay their bills and feed their families without government help.

B. Have disposable income to buy and create demand for goods....which is GOOD for business, creates jobs and increases profits

C. have enough taxable income that it helps with the National Debt.

That's going to take a conscious effort from our business community to accept less in profits and personal gain in the short term for even greater ones in the long term.

It seems to me that them paying 4% more in income taxes is irrelevant to the debt....because there's not enough to make a dent.....but....get 100 million people on a paying basis, with real money in their pockets? Then you have something.

That's going to take a conscious effort from our business community to accept less in profits and personal gain in the short term for even greater ones in the long term.

You had some good points in A and B, but this statement just shows how anti-capitalist you really are. JFK had the best vision for the modern US economy. Look it up.

Oh bullshit....I am pro Capitalist.....You are just too fucking stupid to realize that Capitalists need a MARKET for their goods and services....who is that market? the rest of the people.

If you can't figure that out, then you aren't a pro Capitalist....you're pro Aristocracy type.....You'd be a British sympathizer in 1776....or a guy that goes to Vegas and roots for the house.

the noted communist henry ford realized this back in the day, which is why he paid his people the unheard of wage of $5/day and started the 40 hour work week- so they'd have money to spend and time to spend it.

 

[Steelplate]

That's going to take a conscious effort from our business community to accept less in profits and personal gain in the short term for even greater ones in the long term.

You had some good points in A and B, but this statement just shows how anti-capitalist you really are. JFK had the best vision for the modern US economy. Look it up.

Oh bullshit....I am pro Capitalist.....You are just too fucking stupid to realize that Capitalists need a MARKET for their goods and services....who is that market? the rest of the people.

If you can't figure that out, then you aren't a pro Capitalist....you're pro Aristocracy type.....You'd be a British sympathizer in 1776....or a guy that goes to Vegas and roots for the house.

the noted communist henry ford realized this back in the day, which is why he paid his people the unheard of wage of $5/day and started the 40 hour work week- so they'd have money to spend and time to spend it.

EXACTLY...we need more Henry Fords and less Carnegies and Rockefellers right now....and Mostly? We need a Teddy Roosevelt in the White House.

 

[WillowTree]

Who said anything about equality? All we are saying is.....pay your fucking workers so they can:

A. Keep a roof over their heads, pay their bills and feed their families without government help.

B. Have disposable income to buy and create demand for goods....which is GOOD for business, creates jobs and increases profits

C. have enough taxable income that it helps with the National Debt.

That's going to take a conscious effort from our business community to accept less in profits and personal gain in the short term for even greater ones in the long term.

It seems to me that them paying 4% more in income taxes is irrelevant to the debt....because there's not enough to make a dent.....but....get 100 million people on a paying basis, with real money in their pockets? Then you have something.

That's going to take a conscious effort from our business community to accept less in profits and personal gain in the short term for even greater ones in the long term.

You had some good points in A and B, but this statement just shows how anti-capitalist you really are. JFK had the best vision for the modern US economy. Look it up.

Oh bullshit....I am pro Capitalist.....You are just too fucking stupid to realize that Capitalists need a MARKET for their goods and services....who is that market? the rest of the people.

If you can't figure that out, then you aren't a pro Capitalist....you're pro Aristocracy type.....You'd be a British sympathizer in 1776....or a guy that goes to Vegas and roots for the house.

Hey dude, I've told ya this before, Price yerself right outta the market the way GM did? Is that really smart? If all your demands are met there will be a far greater number of unemployed. No you are not pro capitalist. you're a communist.

 

[AVG-JOE]

the noted communist henry ford realized this back in the day, which is why he paid his people the unheard of wage of $5/day and started the 40 hour work week- so they'd have money to spend and time to spend it.

EXACTLY...we need more Henry Fords and less Carnegies and Rockefellers right now....and Mostly? We need a Teddy Roosevelt in the White House.

I think I'd prefer someone who knows how to drive a car and run a microwave.

 

[WillowTree]

not sure how to answer the hypothetical... - the Bureau of Labor Statistics says he created 4 million plus jobs - with job growth for 29 months straight - when he took office the economy was shedding 800,000 jobs per month.

Romney had an abysmal record for job creation as Governor of MA, and cut jobs in his private sector firms.

Yeah right. 23 million unemployed Americans with a rate of 7.9%,, obummer worked "miracles" I tell ya.

 

[Steelplate]

That's going to take a conscious effort from our business community to accept less in profits and personal gain in the short term for even greater ones in the long term.

You had some good points in A and B, but this statement just shows how anti-capitalist you really are. JFK had the best vision for the modern US economy. Look it up.

Oh bullshit....I am pro Capitalist.....You are just too fucking stupid to realize that Capitalists need a MARKET for their goods and services....who is that market? the rest of the people.

If you can't figure that out, then you aren't a pro Capitalist....you're pro Aristocracy type.....You'd be a British sympathizer in 1776....or a guy that goes to Vegas and roots for the house.

Hey dude, I've told ya this before, Price yerself right outta the market the way GM did? Is that really smart? If all your demands are met there will be a far greater number of unemployed. No you are not pro capitalist. you're a communist.

No....you're a brainwashed moron.

 

[WillowTree]

Oh bullshit....I am pro Capitalist.....You are just too fucking stupid to realize that Capitalists need a MARKET for their goods and services....who is that market? the rest of the people.

If you can't figure that out, then you aren't a pro Capitalist....you're pro Aristocracy type.....You'd be a British sympathizer in 1776....or a guy that goes to Vegas and roots for the house.

Hey dude, I've told ya this before, Price yerself right outta the market the way GM did? Is that really smart? If all your demands are met there will be a far greater number of unemployed. No you are not pro capitalist. you're a communist.

No....you're a brainwashed moron.

And you're a communist.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Would you rather have a growing economy where the rich guys get 9 out of every 10 dollars of new wealth that are created, or an economy where nobody gets anything?

bogus choice


good bye

 

[ilia25]

Would you rather have a growing economy where the rich guys get 9 out of every 10 dollars of new wealth that are created, or an economy where nobody gets anything? First scenario, you got a dollar, 2nd one you got nothin'.

A hypothetical situation to be sure..

Yes, it is hypothetical. More inequality does not make the economy growing faster -- and that is why it is a problem.

That may be true, but misses the point. The question I'm proposing is whether or not you can grow the economy and avoid more inequality. I would say it's possible, but there is a point where you raise taxes enough to where economic growth is negatively impacted.

That is true, there is a point when taxes are too high and they affecting growth. But the US is nowhere near that point.

The US had 91% top tax rate from 1946 till 1964 and it remained at 70% until 1981. And guess what -- the economy was growing faster then, than in the past 30 years.

generally I'd say raising them in a bull market is okay, raising them at a time like this is not.

There are reasons to believe that raising taxes at the top have little effect on the economy. The negative effect of cutting the government spending is much larger.

 

[ilia25]

Would you rather have a growing economy where the rich guys get 9 out of every 10 dollars of new wealth that are created, or an economy where nobody gets anything? First scenario, you got a dollar, 2nd one you got nothin'.

A hypothetical situation to be sure..

Yes, it is hypothetical. More inequality does not make the economy growing faster -- and that is why it is a problem.

Confiscatory taxation doesn't make the economy grow.

But it does not slow it down either. The US economy was growing very fast after WWII when the top rate was 91%.

No nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.

That is not the point. Taxing the rich is fair makes for a better society.

 

[Wiseacre]

Yes, it is hypothetical. More inequality does not make the economy growing faster -- and that is why it is a problem.

That may be true, but misses the point. The question I'm proposing is whether or not you can grow the economy and avoid more inequality. I would say it's possible, but there is a point where you raise taxes enough to where economic growth is negatively impacted.

That is true, there is a point when taxes are too high and they affecting growth. But the US is nowhere near that point.


Sure about that are ya?


The US had 91% top tax rate from 1946 till 1964 and it remained at 70% until 1981. And guess what -- the economy was growing faster then, than in the past 30 years.


That was then, this is now. They didn't have a debt problem then, and BTW do you know what the bottom tax rate was? 17.40% for AGI between zero and $4000, 20% for $4000 - $8000. According to your logic, I guess we should raise the bottm tax rates too, and everything in between.

generally I'd say raising them in a bull market is okay, raising them at a time like this is not.

There are reasons to believe that raising taxes at the top have little effect on the economy. The negative effect of cutting the government spending is much larger.

Really? Based on what? There are also reasons to believe if you raised rates to where they were in the 50s and 60s, we'd have a doozy of a depression in short order. As for cutting spending, since Obama got re-elected I guess it's a moot point. But you could look ar what Canada did int he mid 90s, they cut spending big time and got themselves out of a big fiscal hole they were in. And stayed out of it too for at least a decade by holding down their spending.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Would you rather have a growing economy where the rich guys get 9 out of every 10 dollars of new wealth that are created, or an economy where nobody gets anything?

The former.

Fortunately that's not the choice we have to make.

 

[ilia25]

That may be true, but misses the point. The question I'm proposing is whether or not you can grow the economy and avoid more inequality. I would say it's possible, but there is a point where you raise taxes enough to where economic growth is negatively impacted.

That is true, there is a point when taxes are too high and they affecting growth. But the US is nowhere near that point.


Sure about that are ya?


The US had 91% top tax rate from 1946 till 1964 and it remained at 70% until 1981. And guess what -- the economy was growing faster then, than in the past 30 years.


That was then, this is now. They didn't have a debt problem then, and BTW do you know what the bottom tax rate was? 17.40% for AGI between zero and $4000, 20% for $4000 - $8000. According to your logic, I guess we should raise the bottm tax rates too, and everything in between.

1. There was a debt problem after WWII -- war bonds, remember? Debt to GDP ratio was about the same as now.
2. What logic are you talking about? The fact that economy was growing with high bottom taxes does not mean we have to rise them.

generally I'd say raising them in a bull market is okay, raising them at a time like this is not.

There are reasons to believe that raising taxes at the top have little effect on the economy. The negative effect of cutting the government spending is much larger.

Really? Based on what?

Based on economic theory. The economy is weak because those who have money, are not investing them. They are happy to lend them to the government at the negative real interest rates. So taking them in form of taxes would have zero impact on economic growth (but the debt growth would be slower).

There are also reasons to believe if you raised rates to where they were in the 50s and 60s, we'd have a doozy of a depression in short order.

What reasons?

As for cutting spending, since Obama got re-elected I guess it's a moot point. But you could look ar what Canada did int he mid 90s, they cut spending big time and got themselves out of a big fiscal hole they were in.

Common, everyone knows now that Canada and other examples are not applicable to the current conditions. Canadian cuts were compensated by the stimulating effects of the currency devaluation and central bank lowering the interest rates. Neither of these two option are available now.